Terrible loss of life,but to me clearly self defense.
I'm very relieved for the accused.
Well first of all the DPP isn't a number of your peers chosen at random so it's completely different. They exist in the interest of the public and clearly pursue a guilty verdict (not sure what you mean by determining guilt or innocence), the jury either agrees with them or the defence.
What you are describing is a system where someone has no right to a defence.
I can’t see how this is a win/lose situation
It's very much a win / lose situation for the defendant. He has lost quite a considerable portion of his liberty.
The DPP followed by the Judge are meant to be a buffer for justice, a buffer for the Jury. They are not supposed to say, sure fúck it he is probably not guilty but sure we will let the Jury decide.
The whole thing was filmed, it wasn't some abstract he said she said piece.
You'd wonder how people discussing this would feel if it was there 16 year old son that became involved here (or in any volatile situation) for whatever reason, and some man (carrying a knife))stabbed him twice resulting in his death.
Would it be a blanket "he deserved it because he was involved."
The victim, as far as I am aware wasn't known to Gardaí as a troublemaker, and even if he was, it still shouldn't see folks glowing because he died here. Josh wasn't even initially involved. Circumstances led to him becoming involved.
Soft on crime stance from "I'm not right wing" Ush. But only when an inner city youth is dead.
If there was no ambiguity on cases as you seem to think is the case then why have a jury system in the first place
just have the DPP
They are there to see if the case warrants prosecution, not of whether the person is innocent or guilty
in this case there was lots of evidence but a decision to be made on what was reasonable force
thats where the jury comes in
I can’t see how this is a win/lose situation. If there was any doubt about whether the accused caused the death then you could take that view.
This was a case of asking whether or not the accused had committed murder or if his actions were justified.
The jury decided, based on the evidence, that there was no murder or manslaughter. Judging for the lack of sympathy here for the ultimate victim in this case, many people agree with the jury.
I’m sure that the prosecutors for the DPP are capable of disengaging their emotions when in the courtroom and will get over the loss of the case.
The DPP decide to pursue the charges, and should only ever do so with a very high likelihood of conviction. Courts are expensive. I'm not sure what you mean by jury or judge. It's an adversarial system where the defence will state their case and the jury will decide, but the case is initiated by the DPP, they are prosecution.
It is not the DPP job to win cases at all. There job is to decide if I here is a case to answer and what charges should be bought for prosecution.
The real question here is why they felt it necessary to prosecute a murder charge here. As I point out earlier there has been a number of precedence cases where the jury have refused to convict in similar cases.
It's interesting that the judge made the point in his summation that life is not lived frame by frame. He was obviously unhappy with the DPP using frame by frame analysis of the CCTV to bring an inference to the case.
The only reason he left the option of conviction for murder open to the jury was because of the defendant having a knife on him but it would seem that he was as not overly happy with that option.
It's all very well saying justice was served but if the defendant had lost he have served 10+ years in jail and probably alit of it in solitary confinement because of area has he young lad that had as killed was from.
On bail the judge had probably no other option but to refuse bail. However at the same time it was not out of the ordinary for the accused to have a fear of the justice he would receive. He came from another jurisdiction where there system may not be as fair. There was a slant in the reporting of what happened so he deciding to leave was not out of the ordinary.
an specifics on the clown show aspect
Of course it did. Reading the reporting of the trial it was a complete and utter clown show, with the Judge eventually telling the jury in not such a subtle nudge nudge wink wink fashion that they should acquit. Personally I think the Judge should have thrown out the murder charge before it got to the Jury which he is fundamentally obliged to do when they is even a small chance of a miscarriage of justice.
But that's okay the DPP are a collection of humans and by no means infallible, but their remit is to the public and to the public purse. They dropped the ball on this one.
Let's not forget he was also charged with assault and producing a knife to intimidate, he was acquitted on both of these as well.
The justice system is finite and shouldn't be used for folly, whether the DPP felt obliged or pressured to bring a murder charge I have no idea, but there was a level of unprofessional incompetence IMHO.
of course they would review, but it isn't their job to win all cases
otherwise there would be no need of a jury or judge
I don't know if there was pressure but can certainly see how it would be likely. If you don't think pressure gets put on the DPP you can go ahead and believe that, but you're naïve in the extreme IMO.
Well it clearly went wrong for the DPP as they lost the case. So was it a lack of evidence, was it not presented correctly, better witnesses etc.... I'm not making any inference on justice being done, I'm saying that the DPP won't be just forgetting it, they will review it and see what can be learned from it.
You're peddling a conspiracy theory that there was political pressure to bring a prosecution and are oblivious to how the DPP works.
This may shock and apall you, but there are people out there who are bit more clued in to how the justice system functions Ush.
Well clearly they lost the case.
Nothing went “wrong” for the DPP.
They put a case forward. It was the job of the jury to decide on the verdict based on the evidence.
At the thread title notes - justice was served.
Why do you think something went wrong for the DPP?
I am not really seeing this political pressure angle for the DPP to prosecute. Read the case notes and the facts we know. Not at all a stretch to think the DPP could have brought this to trial.
I don't know either way, I wasn't present at the trial but the DPP will obviously need to review and figure out what went wrong for them and why.
Are you seriously suggesting that in this case, where a death occurred, and there was evidence to identify the people involved that the DPP was somehow pressurised to put the case forward for trial?
I am entirely satisfied that the DPP, the courts and the jury have all acted properly and without outside influence.
if you dont understand what happened here or why you dont have to comment on it you know
a incident happened , a kid died , the guy responsible was identified and brough to court to find out how and why that happened , a jury decided biased on the facts and information provided to them .
in this one rare occurrence the system seems to have worked
🙄🙄🙄
They failed in their job I think you will find, no sh*t indeed.
You have no basis to say they were always going to bring charges, and evidently, it may have been wiser not to.
Of course there would have been pressure from the media alone.
No sh*t.
They were doing their job brining a charge in this case.
No prosecutor would have let this one out of their sights.
"Ah shur it was a fair knife fight, nothing to see here"
Come out of the fog.
They should release the CCTV, in the public interest
The DPP seek to secure conviction with a high burden of proof, which they failed to do.
You're making an opaque nebulous claim they were pressured to bring charges in this case.
That's nonsense, the DPP were always going to bring charges and you have zero basis to say they were pressured into doing so.
Yeah the DPP and the public are positively relaxed about teenagers being killed in a knife incident.
100 times out of 100 some manner of charges will be brought in these circumstances.
The DPP may have overshot bringing a murder charge as opposed to manslaughter. But they are maximalists when it come to seeking charges. They will always seek to press charges in these circumstances.
Lol
I'm not casting aspersions on a trial I wasn't present for, unlike you. I'm pointing out the DPP can be pressured and I'm sure it was in this case right down to the charges to be sought, justifiably or not.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/444ec6bdb93f8729d46a0de31ca76287.svg)
